Front Cover

Group Title: Working paper Farming Systems Research Group, Michigan State University no. 6
Title: Farming systems research position paper
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095069/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farming systems research position paper
Series Title: Working paper Farming Systems Research Group, Michigan State University no. 6
Physical Description: 5 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Artis, Jay William
Michigan State University -- Farming Systems Research Group
Donor: unknown ( endowment ) ( endowment )
Publisher: Michigan State University, Farming Systems Research Group
Place of Publication: East Lansing
Publication Date: 1981
Copyright Date: 1981
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Statement of Responsibility: by Jay W. Artis.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095069
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 317069933

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
Full Text

Farming Systems

Research Group


The Farming Systems Research Group at Michigan State University is drawn from
the departments of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Animal
Science, Crop and Soil Science, Food Science and Human Nutrition, Sociology,
Veterinary Medicine, and supported by the International Agriculture Institute of
M.S.U. and the U.S. Agency for International Development through a matching
strengthening grant under the Title XII program.


Farming Systems Research Group
Michigan State University

The Farming Systems Research Group at Michigan State University, supported
by Title XII Strengthening Grant Funds from the U.S. Agency for International
Development, and administered by the Institute of International Agriculture,
has included Dr. Jay Artis, Department of Sociology; Dr. Robert J. Deans,
Department of Animal Science; Dr. Merle Esamy (and Dr. Robert Wilkinson),
Department of Agricultural Engineering; Dr. Eric Crawford, Department of
Agricultural Economics; Dr. Russell Freed, Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences (also representing Horticulture); Dr. Al Pearson, Department of
Food Science and Human Nutrition; Dr. Tjaart Schillhorn van Veen, Department
of Veterinary Medicine; with Dr. George Axinn, International Studies and
Programs and Agricultural Economics, Chair, and Ms. Beverly Fleisher,
graduate research assistant.



by Jay W. Artis

Working Paper No. 6

July, 1981 -



Paper No.















Farming Systems Research and Agricul-
tural Economics

Farming Systems Position Paper

Livestock Systems and Animal Health

Issues in Farming Systems Research --
an Agronomist's Perspective

Farming Systems Research As It Relates
To The Animal Sciences

Farming Systems Research Position Paper

The Farming Systems Research Approach in
the Agricultural Engineering Field

Issues in Farming Systems Research --
a Multidisciplinary Behavioral Science

Farming Systems Research and
Agricultural Engineering

An M.S.U. Approach to Farming Systems

The M.S.U. Farming Systems Research
Group Perspective

A Working Bibliography on Farming
Systems Research August, 1981

Social Impact, Economic Change, and
Development -- with illustrations
from Nepal


Eric Crawford

Al Pearson

Tjaart Schillhorn van Veen

Russell Freed

Robert J. Deans

Jay Artis

Merle L. Esmay

George H. Axinn

Robert H. Wilkinson

Beverly Fleisher and
George H. Axinn

George H. Axinn and
Nancy W. Axinn

Farming Systems Research Group Jay W. Artis

Farming Systems Research Position Paper No. 6

What is FSR as I see it?

Primarily, it is an attempt to solve the "diffusion of new practices"

problem in a way that is new at least it is new to the Third World development

community. In contrast to other approaches, this new approach involves:

-A concern with ecological or agro-ecological homogeneity and, in some

instances, a concern for socio-cultural and/or political administrative


-A concern with the whole farm household, or, at least, with all the agri-

cultural production related activities of the members of the farm household.

-A concern that the innovation to be introduced be appropriate to the eco-

logical and the agro-value situation of the farm household. (Agro-value

system refers to that part of the household value system that is related

to agricultural activity choices.) This can mean a households' initiated

demand for agricultural research. (This aspect of "downstream" FSR has not

received much discussion in the literature.)

-A concern that the feasibility and value of the innovation be demonstrated

on the farm by the farm household (in the system using system resources).

This is the "research in the field" or "experiment on the farm" component

and assumes the availability of fairly skilled research personnel willing

to work in the field, and the cooperation of the farm household in the

research enterprise.

-A concern that national and international ("upstream") research agendas

reflect the research needs of the farm household, and particularly, of the

farm household that produces little or nothing for the market.

-A concern that national and international agricultural programs and

policies take into account the needs of the small farm household.

What FSR is not, as I see it.

Although FSR reports and proposals often speak of helping farm families

to allocate resources in a manner that takes into account all the family's

priorities, in practice the primary concern has been with the economic aspects

of the family's agricultural activities, and the FSR analysis and program recom-

mendations have focused on the production, storage, and marketing of food and

fiber. If any more general analytical perspective is used, it is usually a farm

management perspective. The human "system" in FSR is the agricultural activities

part of the total activities of the farm family.

However, if the systems perspective tells us anything, it tells us that the

"knee bone" is indeed "connected to the thigh bone" and that success in increasing

yields or profits, or any other changes in the agricultural activities sector of

the farm household system will have its impact, its "ripple effect" in other areas

of household and community behavior. It is a commonplace finding in social sicence

research that an increase in available resources leads to behavior and value

changes. At the subsistence level, even a very small increment in the family's

food supply or disposable income can open a large range of new possibilities, each

with some potential for behavior and value modification. An elderly Christian

gentleman in Uganda told me that the devil had come to his community on a motor-

cycle, carrying a portable radio and a television set. We may intend only to

increase yields, but end up furnishing transport to fallen angels.

What, then, are some of the areas of development not taken into account by

current FSR approaches.

The first and most obvious is the area of nutrition. If new crops are to

be brought in, or if new varieties of currently grown crops are to be introduced,

are they socially, culturally, and physiologically acceptable as part of the

food supply? If yields are increased, will they improve nutrition in the farm


household, especially among those age groups most in need, or will the increased

yields be sold, with the cash used to improve the conditions of life in other

than nutritional areas? Or will it be dissipated, from a nutritional point of

view, on amusements? Just as we need to know more about farm household decision

making in the agricultural production area, so also do we need to know more about

decision making in the budget allocation and consumption area.

The second is the area of family planning, or if we want to put it in

systems terms, we might call it systems member replacement. Every continuing

system must provide for the replacement of its members and, ultimately, for the

balancing between member needs and resources. Farming systems are, presumably,

not an exception to this rule, but statements of the FSR perspective and domain

do not mention this system characteristic.

Related to the problem of member replacement is the problem of member train-

ing. Each new member in the system has to be taught the values and the behaviors

believed to be essential to successful system performance. In addition, if new

values and/or behaviors evolve in or are introduced from outside the system, often

new training procedures must be developed to bring the new behaviors or values

into the system. FSR programs, since they are an attempt to change farm practices,

do say something about procedures for re-educating the subject farmers currently

in an FSR project. Usually this procedure involves the training and introduction

into the subject farming system, on a short term basis, of a new type of extension

worker called a "farming systems economist" or some such title. In addition, the

FSR on the farm team almost always includes an agronomist willing and capable of

working on the problems of the small farm, but little is said about any special

training or retraining he may require. Also, some of the FSR literature recognizes

that research station staff will have to be retrained to be sensitive to the

interests and problems of the small, non-commercial farmer. All other retraining


efforts, including those necessary to the long term continuation of the FSR

introduced innovations, are presumably delegated to the existing extension

service, although nothing is said as to how the members of the service are to be

trained for this task.

Like training, health is also a major factor related to farming system per-

formance. System members must be maintained at a level of health that will allow

them to perform system roles. This is, of course, related to nutrition, as I have

mentioned above. However, it is also related to the way in which the system makes

resource allocation decisions about health needs. Maintaining the health of the

system member, and particularly of the female system member, is often a low

priority in the allocation system.

Other areas could be mentioned. For example, farming systems have to devote

energy to such political processes as settling disputes, maintaining boundaries,

interpreting traditional rules and the like and to a wide variety of civic and

religious ceremonial, ritual, and celebration behaviors. While, perhaps, these

are somewhat remote from the central agricultural production concerns of FSR, they

are integral parts of the system context of FSR. Taking them into account could,

conceivably, increase the probability of a successful FSR intervention.

FSR and Sociology

So far as I am aware, sociologists have been little involved in the current

approach to farming systems research. They were heavily involved in the U.S.

farming systems research of the 1930s and '40s, but that differed in many sig-

nificant respects from the current FSR approach.

Obviously I believe, from what I have written above, that sociology has a

contribution to make: to assess and, hopefully, to predict the impact of the FSR

intervention on social structure and on the relationship between values and social

structure 1) within the farming system and 2) between the farming system and the

larger system contexts within which it operates.


Sociologists have for many years used systems approaches to the study of a

great variety of human groups from national systems to small groups in laboratory

situations. Thus the concept of system, with its problems of equilibrium mech-

anisms and its teleological explanation of human behavior, is familiar to them.

Also, a revival of interest in the ecological systems approach to the study

of social groups is occurring in the discipline, probably as a consequence of the

increased interest in energy and resource conservation. This analytical framework

fits very nicely with the FSR idea of recommendation zones and household food

production relationships.

Related to this is the growing interest in the technology-population-resource

* relationship, and the way in which social movements have emerged and have attempted

to affect this relationship. There are many parallels in this research to the

interests and processes involved in FSR.

Needs from other disciplines

First, we need a'sufficient opportunity to exchange views about areas of

mutual concern. Every discipline represents a particular way of viewing the world

and, to use Veblen's phrase, a "trained incapacity" to view it in any other way.

To overcome this trained incapacity, we have got to have many opportunities to

learn each other's perspectives and vocabulary, and a tolerant view of the probable

usefulness of the other person's discipline, at least until proved otherwise.

Second, we need an opportunity to work together "in the field" on a problem

of mutually agreed importance. Communication around a table is valuable and can

solve many inter-disciplinary difficulties, but the ability to communicate in the

field so as to solve a problem is the final test of any multidisciplinary or inter-

disciplinary approach.


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs